9 réponses à ce sujet

[El Capt Mexico]

We have now heard and read about the Extended Cut coming this summer. But what has my eye brow raised while I rub my chin with my index finger, will there be a final boss? I know it has been said that there will be added cinematics and epilogue scenes, but I would like to go toe to toe with a final enemy. My point being that ME3 didn't have a definitive final boss that will put my combat skills to its final test. Sorry I don't want to talk to the final boss of the game, it's something that I have been "indoctrinated" with ever since I picked up a Nintendo controller, the final boss must be stomped, punched, sliced, stabbed, blown up, or shot. I know some people (including me) have adopted Marauder Shields as the final boss, but I am talking about an enemy that is unique to the final battle.

For example:

DA:O - The Archdemon
Mass Effect - Saren
Chrono Trigger - Lavos
Mortal Kombat - Shao Khan
Super Metriod - Mother Brain
Resident Evil - The Tyrant
Super Mario Brothers - Bowser
FF VII - Sephiroth
Contra - That Alien Heart Thing!

And for better or worse, a final boss brings a sense of accomplishment whether your character gives their life to land the final blow or stands triumphant with a sunset behind them.

Actually when you think about it, there are a lack of bosses in general in ME3. And no, multiple Banshees, Brutes, Harvesters, or Geth Primes do not count. The Rannoch Reaper does... Kai Leng sort of does.

So what I am asking Bioware here is, will there be a final boss in the extended cut or future DLC that truly defines the evil I fought throughout the three games?

Modifié par El Capt Mexico, 07 avril 2012 - 07:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

This may not be the most popular opinion, but I hope there's no boss fight.

I don't hate boss fights, but some of my favourite endings are where I end up not fighting the boss (Fallout, PST, FONV, heck even Ultima VII). I don't think it's as necessary for a story based game. I enjoyed the endings of ME1 and ME2, but the boss fights were weaker parts for me. Convincing Saren to take his own life would have been a fitting end but we still get put into a boss fight. ME2's proto-reaper seemed to be a boss fight because games need boss fights. I would have been fine just destroying the collector base.

That doesn't mean there doesn't need to be a confrontation with an antagonist, but running around shooting or doing some sort of fight with a gimmick doesn't really appeal to me. If there's a battle, I'd prefer for it to be more of a puzzle.

JMO.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2012 - 05:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

iorveth1271 wrote...

But Allan, in FONV you did fight a boss at the end, more or less... at least in most endings.

And I loved that I didn't actually have to fight him

Depending on how you built your character, there are ways to completely skip the boss fight.  I was able to use my Speech skill IIRC.

[Allan Schumacher]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

Sir Allan How would we convince Harbringer to leave Earth alone just by talking to it?

That was just the solution presented in FONV.  That I was able to talk my way out doesn't mean that that should be the proposed solution for any ME3 confrontation with Harbinger.  (Although I can imagine some plausible ways it could work).

PistolPete7556 wrote...
But there are final bosses in the Dragon Age games? So...is a video game a video game without some type of boss?

Yeah there are final bosses in Dragon Age games.  I don't think that that means boss fights are required in order to make a video game a video game.

I'd argue that still is a boss fight, just not one that resaults in combat.

That's fair.  When I think of the term boss fight I typically imagine something more like what DEHR had, but it's not specifically a requirement.  I thought the "conversation fights" in DEHR were interesting though.

[Allan Schumacher]

Ask yourself: Who would like Diablo without the devil as final boss?

I think that the goals of a game like Diablo differ from the goals of games like Mass Effect.

[Allan Schumacher]

Also, it appears the argument is being framed just like every other argument we've made so far, in that we are told by reps: 'Actually, I would rather not have [insert fan request/observation here] because [insert artistic integrity quote here].'

If that's the way my comment comes across then I think I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say.

I have no issue with a confrontation as it often makes sense with respect to the narrative. But running around shooting Harbinger or TIM or anything like that doesn't particularly interest myself as a gamer.

[Allan Schumacher]

RedDeadRemix wrote...

Sorry for being so direct, I understand what you mean now. A fist fight with Harbinger might not have ended well lol.
I'm just more confused with what happened and how unconventional the ending seemed, but at least you are answering some of the questions brought up and giving other perspectives, so I thank you for having this conversation with us.

For the record, I didn't mind some of the boss fights that did exist in ME3.  I did enjoy the climaxes of Rannoch and Tuchanka.  Tuchanka was tense avoiding the charging brutes while setting off the hammers was a tense moment.  The one one one with the Reaper on Rannoch was well done as I thought it felt cinematically.  They toyed with the notion of having to endure a chase scene and having Shepard stop and take care of it was a ballsy and badass move.  It wasn't challenging or anything like that, but was just cool watching the salvos come down and hit the Reaper.

Maybe part of me liked the sequence with TIM simply because it was a bit different?  I also got the Paragon ending which I think helps, because to me it seemed like the ending that ME1 should have had.  Shepard is so badass he can talk down a zealot TIM that has been indoctrinated.

On the other hand, I didn't care at all for the final showdown with Kai Leng.  The only interesting part of that one was the cutscene at the end.  "This is for Kirrahe you son of a ****"  I could have just been shown that cutscene and probably would have come away enjoying that sequence more.

[Allan Schumacher]

Tekkez wrote...

Sounds like you'd rather watch a movie than RPGing and shooting stuff yourself.

The definition of what constitutes an RPG is so nebulous that I don't think it's something that can really be fairly covered here.  I have no problems shooting stuff myself.  I just like my RPGs to include alternative options to always shooting stuff. 

Also in ME1, Shepard could talk down Saren. (Saren shoots himself like TIM) But there is also a fight that follows which shows the Reaper corruption of an organic.

Yeah I know.  I was disappointed with that scene, as it seemed like a boss fight for the sake of having a boss fight.  It would have been interesting to have to fight him if you had insufficient Paragon/Renegade, but to use your character's development to have him shoot himself and let that be the end of it.  The Reaper corruption was silly and made me roll my eyes.

The reason why bosses exist is to give players a sense of
accomplishment. Do you feel like a hero after defeating waves of
enemies you've encountered in earlier missions of the game? I didn't.

For me the sense of accomplishment came with the actual destruction of the Reaper destroyer that was at the end of the hold out scene as you prep the missiles.  I did also feel a sense of accomplishment talking down TIM.

The accomplishment, for me, comes with the resolution of the narrative.  I don't find it different than the sense of accomplishment for beating an adventure game or something along those lines.

[Allan Schumacher]

What is the point of a game if you reduce gameplay more and more to the point it becomes just a movie?

For me I enjoy hand-eye coordination and it is a good part of a game to increase the enjoyability. Without the game aspect Mass Effect would never have been heard of. The game does not sport as much as its first version as far as game play and you want to take more "Play" out of the game?

Not having a boss fight doesn't mean no confrontation, nor does it even mean no gameplay. The problem I have with traditional boss fights is they typically require some sort of mechanic to make the boss seem particularly powerful compared to other people, and often some sort of gimmick. In some cases it works fine, but in other cases it doesn't.

For people like me, we consider making decisions outside of combat to also be interesting. One more obvious aspect of this is the conversation system. Realizing that I have made decisions and discoveries earlier in a game like Fallout 1, and then using those discoveries when talking with the final boss to prove that his solution is flawed is relatively unique and more interesting than just trading turns shooting at each other.

Heck there is already and option to bypass playing the game. If this is the direction of future games I am done with all games as they have ceased to be games. I play games to face challenges of mostly hand-eye coardination, but love a good story and chose those games over ones without.

I am pretty decent at shooter games that require hand eye coordination, but I also like games that challenge me more mentally than physically. Some games I play the combat is completely automated by the game and my input is determining the strategies of what types of attacks to use, the positioning of my units, and things like that. It's just a different experience.

I wouldn't worry about games that require good hand-eye coordination going away any time soon though.

[Allan Schumacher]

Diablos2525 wrote...

Having played Shadow of the Colossus and Ico I can say it really swings either way, you can tell a story and have bosses which further that storytelling experience, or you can not have bosses at all and still retain gameplay and a storytelling experience. Both amazing games, but I do prefer shadow of the colossus a little bit more, something about fighting unique and epic bosses just get's me every time. Maybe it's because one of my favorite RPGS was Final Fantasy VII, it was my favorite game before it became cool to be a ff7 fanboy. I got that game close to release and poured hours into it, and their was a huge build up to the confrontation with Sephiroth...ah the nostalgia.

Games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ico utilize the big fights as a vehicle to progress the story.  Each one is uniquely created to be a part of the game's core experience.  The game's story focused around the encounters, so it makes sense to make the encounters really well thought out and varied.

I'm not saying "all boss fights are bad" but I don't think they're vital for a game to be a game.  It's just another vehicle a game designer can explore to provide an experience for the gamer.  Not every game is going to benefit from having a large dependency on a rules heavy, skill-based mechanics system either.  I like that sort of stuff in some games, and in other games I don't.